The second half of the third/ninth and the fourth/tenth centuries are of particular importance for the development of the judiciary in the central lands of the Abbasid caliphate. At the end of the mihna period and the victory of Sunnism under al-Mutawakkil (r. 232-247/847-861), the caliphate agreed not to interfere further within the legal sphere, thus allowing the principal schools of law to complete their development toward their classical structure. In Iraq, thanks to the growing independence of the legal sphere and to the political weakness of the caliphate, the qadis increased their judicial freedom. Meanwhile, the political situation in Egypt was very different. The provincial rulers and two successive dynasties, the Tulunids (254-292/868-905) and the Ikhshidids (323-358/935-969), profited from the weakness of the caliphate, and imposed their autonomy de facto. The role played by the judiciary in this process is still unclear, as is the impact of Egyptian autonomy on the development of the local judiciary. In this paper, I will show the evolution of the relationship between the Egyptian governors and the judiciary, from the accession of Ahmad b. Tulun in 254/868 until the arrival of the Fatimids in 358/969. Several elements will be taken into consideration: (1) The institutional links between political power and the judiciary: Who appointed the qadis? How were they selected? Did the government choose to rely on local scholars or did the qadis come from outside the province? (2) The financial connection between the governors and the qadis, which was not only symbolic of the delegation of power, but could also denote the submission of the judiciary to the government. (3) The daily interactions between the qadis and the governors. (4) The judicial practice of the qadis. (5) Their reputation. I will show to what extent the judiciary and its control was a political issue for the Tulunids and the Ikhshidids, and how the efforts of these two dynasties to build an Egyptian autonomy had important consequences on the structure of the legal milieu.

This paper examines the relationship between the Sharia and the political authorities through a focus on the muhtasib, an official who was as much a part of the legal landscape as the judge or mufti. Specifically, I study events involving the muhtasib, as recorded in the chronicles, in the cities of Cairo and neighboring Fustat during the Mamluk period (1250–1517). Best described as an inspector of public spaces, this legal official traversed the city carrying out his duty to command right and forbid wrong. The position of muhtasib was connected to legal doctrine and to the jurists, whose rules formed one source of guidance in the official’s work, while at the same time, the position was connected to the sultan, who appointed and dismissed the muhtasibs and also gave orders to them from time to time during their tenures. In terms of constitutional structure, these two sets of influences correspond to two fundamental concepts of authority: the authority of doctrine, associated with the jurists who formulated it, and the authority of policy-based decisions (siyasa), associated with the rulers. Modern studies have justifiably concluded that jurists and rulers recognized the mutual need for the other—their relationship was “symbiotic.” But this does not mean that they had clear jurisdictions that were well recognized—quite the contrary, they each sought to extend the reach of their own notion of law, even at the expense of the other when they disagreed. The muhtasib was influenced by both sources, sometimes in very immediate and tangible ways, allowing for a study of the dynamics between the rulers and jurists as prompted by actions involving the muhtasib, which could create a triangular relationship. I will show the dynamics of these jurisdictional struggles and in particular the extent to which both jurists and rulers took an interest in the full spectrum of social regulation. The sultan involved himself in topics that had elaborate doctrinal rules, and jurists concerned themselves with matters of broader social policy, each based on their own interests. As a result, inhabitants of Cairo and Fustat were governed by both sources in all aspects of public life.

My paper is an attempt to explore the encounter of two perceptions of the institution of the mufti that coexisted across the Ottoman Empire during the first three centuries following the conquest of the Arab lands (16th-18th- centuries). According to the first understanding of the institution – the one endorsed by the imperial religious judicial establishment – the muftiship is a state-appointed office. At the same time, mostly across the Arab lands of the empire, other jurists advanced another perception of the muftiship, according to which every jurist who is granted a permit to issue legal rulings (fatwas) was allowed to do so. By exploring this encounter, my paper seeks to reexamine the relationship between two fundamental components of the Ottoman legal system – kanun and shari‘ah (?eri‘at). These concepts are often described as two supplementary components of the Ottoman legal system. My paper will argue that from an institutional perspective, since the chief mufti was appointed by the state as the chief jurisprudential authority of the imperial establishment, the Ottoman ?eri‘at was to a large degree a product of kanun. The second part of the paper is intended to situate the Ottoman definition of the muftiship in a wider context. To this end, I will compare the Ottoman understanding of the institution with the description of the mufti as it appears in an early sixteenth-century Central Asian treatise, Fazl Allah b. Ruzbahan’s (d. 1519) Suluk-ul-Muluk. Through this comparison, I will argue that the Ottoman perception of the muftiship should be seen as part of a new understanding of the institution of the muftiship that emerged across early modern Central Asia and Anatolia.

This paper explores the role of the Ottoman Sultan and the Ottoman governor of Egypt in resolving disputes and administering the law in Cairo during the late 17th and early 18th centuries. While previous scholarship has focused on the shari‘a court as the central legal institution in the Ottoman empire, due partly to the importance of shari‘a court records as historical sources, the Sultan and the provincial governor were also intimately involved in the day-to-day administration of justice in Ottoman Cairo. The Sultan, or rather his council known as the divan-i humayun, responded to petitions sent by Egyptians. Many of these petitions concerned private disputes on issues ranging from misappropriation of property through debts to neighborly disagreements over privacy. The governor of Egypt, meanwhile, presided over a tribunal known as the Diwan al-‘Ali, where he heard cases involving property disputes and debts as well as assaults and homicides. These two institutions constituted Ottoman expressions of the Islamic tradition of mazalim: the legal jurisdiction of the sovereign. My paper will examine the procedure and operation of these two institutions, as well as their interactions with each other and with Cairo’s shari‘a courts. I will show that rather than constituting rival jurisdictions, the Sultan, governor and kadi cooperated: a kadi often sat with the governor at his Diwan, while the Sultan often referred cases to the shari‘a court in Cairo. The different institutions respected each other's judgments. I will argue that while there was no significant difference in jurisdiction between them, the more important distinction was one of function. The kadi, using the legal procedures derived from fiqh, was responsible for assessing the veracity of litigants’ claims and establishing facts. The governor and Sultan were responsible for supervising cases in order to prevent corruption and ensure that judgments were enforced. As practiced in Ottoman Egypt, mazalim was not an extraordinary jurisdiction that sought to circumvent the prescriptions of Islamic law, but rather a set of practices that sought to integrate Islamic law more fully into the institutions of government.